Thursday, December 22, 2011

Apologizing for their gay superpowers

This is too funny. Amy Koch was a Minnesota legislator who supported amending her state's constitution to ban gay marriage. "Was" until she resigned after it was learned she'd had an extra-marital affair.

Now, on behalf of his fellow gay Minnesotans, one man has apologized to Koch for what they did to the sanctity of Koch's marriage:
An Open Apology to Amy Koch on Behalf of All Gay and Lesbian Minnesotans

Dear Ms. Koch,

On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community's successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage. We are ashamed of ourselves for causing you to have what the media refers to as an "illicit affair" with your staffer, and we also extend our deepest apologies to him and to his wife. These recent events have made it quite clear that our gay and lesbian tactics have gone too far, affecting even the most respectful of our society.

We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry. And we are doubly remorseful in knowing that many will see this as a form of sexual harassment of a subordinate.

It is now clear to us that if we were not so self-focused and myopic, we would have been able to see that the time you wasted diligently writing legislation that would forever seal the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, could have been more usefully spent reshaping the legal definition of "adultery."

Forgive us. As you know, we are not church-going people, so we are unable to fully appreciate that "gay marriage" is incompatible with Christian values, despite the fact that those values carry a biblical tradition of adultery such as yours. We applaud you for keeping that tradition going.

And finally, shame on us for thinking that marriage is a private affair, and that our marriage would have little impact on anyone's family. We now see that marriage is more than that. It is an agreement with society. We should listen to the Minnesota Family Council when it tells us that marriage is about being public, which explains why marriages are public ceremonies. Never did we realize that it is exactly because of this societal agreement that the entire world is looking at you in shame and disappointment instead of minding its own business.

From the bottom of our hearts, we ask that you please accept our apology.

Thank you.
John Medeiros
Minneapolis MN
Of course, in the South (and I suspect in Minnesota too), many gays and lesbians *are* churchgoers.


  1. Up until about 10 years or so ago gay marriage simply was not on the national agenda. No sizable contingent of the gay community was seeking it. Now anyone who is not totally on board is treated as a raving homophobe. I hate the rhetoric on both sides of the issue.

  2. It wasn't on the agenda because it was treated as laughably absurd.

    Once that didn't work any more and people actually had to *explain* why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, it turned out their arguments were laughably absurd.

  3. Ten years ago, homosexuality was still criminalized in many states. That, of course, changed in 2003 (just don't ask Rick Perry why because he doesn't know).

    If a man's very existence is criminal, why would he even dream of a day when he could actually share in similar benefits that his heterosexual counterparts enjoy?

    And why are you not totally on board, CRS? Put your libertarian dogma to the test. You tend to focus on carrots and sticks when it comes to public policy. Why not offer a carrot that would promote stable relationships between gay "partners" (I hate that term; too sterile a description)?

    So, put aside the bullshit of "[n]ow anyone who is not totally on board is treated as a raving homophobe." They are identified as being selfish assholes, blinded by some delusion that heterosexuals have somehow purified the coupling process and cornered the market on sanctity. Pop culture has shown us the absurdity of those thoughts (think: marriages of Britney Spears, Kim Kardashian).

    The simple question to me is this: why would we deny a group a set of rights that could greatly enhance their quality of life?